Quote:
|
irstly, politicians do not have proper knowledge of working of the ministry, when they are given the task they perform poorly. the statements like "degree to degree hoti he .......", "25 bn key notes chap lo to energy crisis khatam ho jaye ga.......", "pia koi dukan naen jo do char dino maen thek ho jaye gi......." etc. .
|
My learned fellow, You know in modern administrative structure , the working of State apparatus proceeds strictly in accordance with the laid down procedures along with other checks and balances , audits etc.Secretary of the ministry is administrative head of the ministry with Minsters rule being a figurehead who provide General Guidance. This role best suits to politically elected representatives.
Ministerial Job is not something restricted to one's technical expertise. If this would have been the case, health ministry should have been headed by a doctor. Can a MBBS Doctor run effectively the Ministry as Secretary instead of a career bureaucrat?You better know the answer.....
A Non Representative Technocrat will continue his job with approach of an "employee" whose main task is to keep the boss happy.
Besides, the current system rewards the politicians by bestowing ministerial and other august offices upon them. This help them understand the whole state structure and this way they get ready for future more important positions.If they are denied ministerial posts ,what inducement will they have to make their way to parliament? What will be the role of political parties then?Currently Political Parties are voted to power but in case executive posts are denied to them what role of political parties will be left?
And it is not that all politicians are uneducated , there are many competent individuals amongst political lot. Out of 447 members house(Both Upper and Lower) only 35 gets ministerial responsibility.From next Govt the number will be reduced further in light of 18th Amendement. I believe capable people can be found amongst the parliamentary lot who can better run the ministries.
One thing more that whenever politicians unite for State Benfit, they bring good results.I would like to share the Performance of Parliamentary Commission on Judicial appointments. Independent Observers have applauded their performance so far. They have rejected Certain Recommendation of Judicial Commission(headed by CJ :From its Composition you Can Call it Body of Technocrats) on very valid grounds that were overlooked by the latter.
Quote:
|
As a scholar puts it "to subdue the military, you should know the job of military more than military does." So out of this reason, I proposed complete separation of powers, enunciated in the constitution as well, between executive and legislature.
|
Ministries Control Over its attached department is minimal as they function unedr their respective head/DGs who are appointed by the Prime Ministers.For Example Islmabad Police, FIA, IB, NPA,NADRA etc. If the Ministry can oversee these departments then why not ISI? Its not matter of Capability rather its clout of Armed Forces that doesnt allow such move to take place.
As for as Minsitry of Defence is concerned , Its Secretary , traditionally, is aretired army Officer of Rank of General(With few exceptions as the incumbent Secretary Defence is a DMG Officer who have been entrusted additional Charge for time bening. Former Air Chief Marshal Rao Qamar Salman is being tipped as New Secretary Defence)
Quote:
|
As I have already mentioned that each technocrat minister would be backed by think tank and parliamentary committee, it means the parliament, elected politicians, would have a say in the policy of the ministry but will not be running by themselves.
|
Parliamentary Committees' rule is advisory in nature. If its rule is granted supervisory or decisive powers over the Minsters, the ministry cant function even. Minsters would answerable at least their boss but whome the committee of parliament would be answerable to? If you say to public i 'll say no? Why because even an educated person-let alone a low literate individual -dont know the intricacies of legislative business? Then how the people will judge their representative? Wont the parlimentarin seek [personal favours from ministers to let him work?
Quote:
|
Secondly, Pakistan is going through a very crucial time where it is, apart form other issues, wrangled in corruption, mismanagement, funds misuse etc. there is a basic financial rule that a cashier should not be approver, should not be purchaser, should not be auditor and should not be policy making; rather there should be one person for each. a minister who happens to be legislator as well as minister would not do any legislation which will damage his vested interests in the ministry. see how the politicians turn their coats only to get ministries. s.
|
Matters of State are very different from that of organisation.A Minster who is member of Parliament can better lobby for legislative than a non elected one. For the latter , its most likely that parliamentarian would have little sympathy for him.
Quote:
|
similarly, a politicians is not only a legislator but also a minister and regulator of local governance in his constituency. in such a scenario, politician does not get time to do his primary work - legislation
|
All legislators are not minsters as i said earlier. He is not regulator of local fund as it falls unedr the purview of loacl authorities.
Elected Representatives are judged -inter alia- from development work carried in their respective constituencies. Legislative Business is simplay Non-Relevant to 99.9 perecent Public(as people know little) about.
Quote:
|
Lastly, USA and France are not homogeneous countries. presidential system is working there, though I am not taking a leaf from their system and what i proposed does include a large pie of power for legislators, hence a mixture of parliamentary, presidential and autocratic systems
|
The mistrust and apprehensions found in federating units of Pakistan are not there in USA and France.
[quote]s for as your concern about president being alienated from majority power is concerned, the president would be elected by the electorates, on the same pattern as legislators are elected. definitly, every political party would bring its candidate for presidency, hence whoever is elected as president would have backing of a major political party[\quote]
Electoral Dynamics in pakistan are very differnt. A Large number of candidates win polls on their personal strength.There are common exmaples where a candiate from one party win national assembally seat but other party candidate win seat from Provincial assembaly of the same area. So for voting to a legisltor personal relations will matter.But for presidential slot , it wont be the case.
If President doesnt enjoy simple majority in Parliament, he or she cant function.No Budget will get passed, no legsilative wbusiness will held so there would eb hyigh chances of System Break Down
That said , i stand by my words that your proposed system is impracticable in Pakistan. Though the Currunt System is not flawless but is acceptable and relatively better. The remedies to our gravenesses l;ies in strenthening of institutions.